Had an informative talk with my congressman


PDA






Dmath
February 20, 2013, 12:23 PM
I was at a business/social function. Very crowded and noisy. (I would imagine pols have to go to these things to stay alive.) He is a very well-known Republican from my state. We had not met before, he and I, but I started right in on the subject most important to all of us.

Here is a summary of what he said. (You will forgive me for not following the convention that most people today feel that you need to follow to make the conversation more interesting, where you relate the entire exchange in pointless detail, with “I said” and “he said” rendered as “I’m like” and “he’s like.”)

Anyway, summary version:

So-called assault weapons bans or restrictions – not gonna happen.

High-cap magazine bans – also not gonna happen.

“Gun-show loophole” – may have to be an accommodation, where either (a) any FFL can run a NICS check for a small fee, or (b) the ATF has a booth and does the NICS check. In any case, in-family transfers would be exempt. Also, you'd still be able to do business in the parking lot.

He acknowledged that, yes, we should not give on anything.

And now, to put it in terms that can be understood by the Boomers, Generation Xers and Generation Yers:

I was like, dude, no way. He was all like, dude, way. I was like, they’re just gonna move the goalposts that much forward each time. And he was all like, we’ll see how it all shakes out. Dude.

If you enjoyed reading about "Had an informative talk with my congressman" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jerkface11
February 20, 2013, 12:27 PM
(b) the ATF has a booth and does the NICS check.

LOL let's go with this one. The first weekend we will have a show in EVERY city.

Solo
February 20, 2013, 12:35 PM
I was like, dude, no way. He was all like, dude, way. I was like, they’re just gonna move the goalposts that much forward each time. And he was all like, we’ll see how it all shakes out. Dude.I'm stoked to see that he was totally righteous and not bogus, bro.

youngda9
February 20, 2013, 12:45 PM
The funny part is that you guys are so old that you think you're talking modern when you're really talking like it's 1989.

People don't say "shakes out", "dude", "stoked", "totally righteous", or "bogus" anymore. Bill and Ted said those sort of things.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7c/Bill_%26_Ted's_Excellent_Adventure_(Original_Motion_Picture_Soundtrack).jpg/220px-Bill_%26_Ted's_Excellent_Adventure_(Original_Motion_Picture_Soundtrack).jpg

Old Fuff
February 20, 2013, 12:49 PM
Ah dudes!!! Like I need a translator... :neener:

Greenmachin3
February 20, 2013, 12:52 PM
I'm in my late 20s... stoked is still widely used by people my age +/- 4 years. However the bro, brah, stuff is just a little younger. It's like seeing a person who wears their hat on backwards... it just shouts immaturity.

JRH6856
February 20, 2013, 01:18 PM
LOL let's go with this one. The first weekend we will have a show in EVERY city.
Let's NOT go with this one.

O will issue an exec order that gun show operators have to schedule their shows when ATF can be there. And then, ATF won't have any open dates on their schedule.

Poper
February 20, 2013, 01:27 PM
“Gun-show loophole” – may have to be an accommodation, where either (a) any FFL can run a NICS check for a small fee, Kind of like a small transfer fee for an internet purchase? Transfer fees started out "small" at 15$ to $25 several years ago. Now I-xfers are often $45 to $55 because FFL's are often miffed they didn't make a commission on the sale. It's all good, though, because it could eventually kill their internet sales, too.

JMHO

Poper

AlexanderA
February 20, 2013, 01:32 PM
There are at least 6 House Republicans that are already on board for universal background checks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/universal-background-checks-joe-heck_n_2725239.html

JRH6856
February 20, 2013, 01:42 PM
If I were a gun show operator, I would just hire someone with an FFL, put them at a table and let them run checks for $5-$10 each.

Dmath
February 20, 2013, 02:52 PM
The funny part is that you guys are so old that you think you're talking modern when you're really talking like it's 1989.

People don't say "shakes out", "dude", "stoked", "totally righteous", or "bogus" anymore. Bill and Ted said those sort of things.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7c/Bill_%26_Ted's_Excellent_Adventure_(Original_Motion_Picture_Soundtrack).jpg/220px-Bill_%26_Ted's_Excellent_Adventure_(Original_Motion_Picture_Soundtrack).jpg
Something tells me I may, just may, have heard a young person say "dude" at some point in recent history. But perhaps I was mistaken.

shafter
February 20, 2013, 03:19 PM
If I got a dollar for everytime someone said "not gonna happen". . .

Texan Scott
February 20, 2013, 03:47 PM
The majority of my employees are about my oldest child's age. Here, "dude" is still very much in use... but everything else seems to be degenerating toward non-verbal squeals and grunts, punctuated by grammar-challenged English and lots of the F word.
It's sad, really. If our schools can't teach them to speak proper English, the least we can do is enlist them in the service, where they could learn to curse more intelligently.

Akita1
February 20, 2013, 04:00 PM
Something tells me I may, just may, have heard a young person say "dude" at some point in recent history. But perhaps I was mistaken.
My 7 & 8 year olds, to my constant correction, say "dude" all the time. So do all of their friends. "Bro" and "brah" seem, however, to have evolved to a full "brother" or "brother-man." Plus a full spate of acronyms from the lovely texting vernacular. Too true Texan, f-bombs are pandemic.

Sorry, off topic but THAT was funny by Dmath.

Dmath
February 20, 2013, 04:25 PM
Veering back on topic --

If I had to choose one of these stupid things, it would be the AWB of 1994, which didn't actually ban anything but manufacture and importation after a certain date. This had essentially no effect on the availability or even the price of so-called assault weapons. It was just political theater.

But if they get to meddling with background checks, there is no good that can come out of it, only loss of civil rights.

Still, I have the gut feeling we won't have to have any of them. Time passes. Horses get traded. Sun sets.

MagnumDweeb
February 20, 2013, 04:27 PM
I wonder if self manufacture will be an issue. I'm sitting on four AK flats, and after December I want to work up a build around a pistol caliber. The biggest trouble will be getting the ten inch barrel.

shafter
February 20, 2013, 05:59 PM
learn to curse more intelligently. [/I]]

I'm not sure about that oxymoron but it was funny nontheless.

NavyLCDR
February 20, 2013, 06:03 PM
“Gun-show loophole” – may have to be an accommodation, where either (a) any FFL can run a NICS check for a small fee, or (b) the ATF has a booth and does the NICS check.

Why have the ATF have a booth for NICS checks? Why not just have the FBI there. FBI runs NICS, not the ATF. I doubt if Congress has any idea who runs NICS.....

Akita1
February 20, 2013, 06:05 PM
Why have the ATF have a booth for NICS checks? Why not just have the FBI there. FBI runs NICS, not the ATF. I doubt if Congress has any idea who runs NICS.....
Or your respective State? In FL it is the FDLE that is the primary contact for NICS and they run it through FBI.

hso
February 20, 2013, 06:12 PM
Gents, can we get back on topic (said in Grumpy Old Men-Walther Matthau voice)

AlexanderA
February 20, 2013, 07:13 PM
If I had to choose one of these stupid things, it would be the AWB of 1994, which didn't actually ban anything....

If there is a new AWB, it won't be a carbon copy of the 1994 ban. The antigunners have learned their "lesson," and there won't be any prospective grandfathering. The other "lesson" that they learned was that attacking magazine capacity was more significant than attacking cosmetic features of the guns. That's why I'm most worried about a magazine ban, then about a general AWB, and only lastly about a UBC. Of course the details matter a lot.

Dmath
February 20, 2013, 07:23 PM
If there is a new AWB, it won't be a carbon copy of the 1994 ban. The antigunners have learned their "lesson," and there won't be any prospective grandfathering. The other "lesson" that they learned was that attacking magazine capacity was more significant than attacking cosmetic features of the guns. That's why I'm most worried about a magazine ban, then about a general AWB, and only lastly about a UBC. Of course the details matter a lot.
Yes, the devil's always in the details.

But the main thrust of what I was saying was that we can lose more with background checks than with some goofy "assault" definitions. (Although the antis probably learned a thing or two from the 1994 ban.) But that really is just a guess, and not one based on any actual experience with the way laws get made in the halls of power.

mooner
February 20, 2013, 07:25 PM
Universal background check is the biggest threat. Period. We really need to fight this one because of all the suggestion legislation this polls best with the public. Understand, the devil is in the details.

Universal background checks are unenforceable without registration - they understand this and it will be part of it - either now or very soon. Maybe they can slide it in in the rulemaking process - won't have to be on the bill then.

Once they know where the guns are, they can be identified and taken. All the next step has to be is a AWB - cosmetic or otherwise and round em up, boys.

Registration is my line in the sand.

danprkr
February 20, 2013, 07:26 PM
I too am blessed with a congresscritter that votes correctly MOST of the time.

Solo
February 20, 2013, 07:27 PM
Question about registration: How much would it cost annually to have nationwide registration?

Texan Scott
February 20, 2013, 07:48 PM
^ Cost? Only your 2A RKBA, and a bit more tax money from your paycheck....

Old Fuff
February 20, 2013, 08:33 PM
Question about registration: How much would it cost annually to have nationwide registration?

I'd say it would cost the government nothing. :what:

Because they will tack a generous fee on each gun registration for the owner to pay. :eek:

Red Sky
February 20, 2013, 08:47 PM
I think when he mentioned "gun show loophole" he meant to potentially allow something that bans unchecked sales *AT GUNS SHOWS* and nowhere else. Would be funny to watch the anti's whip the crowds into a frenzy in support of it, claiming their "huge victory," just to have everyone realize right after the fact that they got royally duped by their own ignorant leadership.

NavyLCDR
February 20, 2013, 09:11 PM
The antigunners have learned their "lesson," and there won't be any prospective grandfathering. The other "lesson" that they learned was that attacking magazine capacity was more significant than attacking cosmetic features of the guns. That's why I'm most worried about a magazine ban, then about a general AWB, and only lastly about a UBC. Of course the details matter a lot.

And there won't be an expiration date on it this time.

If you enjoyed reading about "Had an informative talk with my congressman" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!